Barry Birkey said:

> Jim, I have seen just the opposite in the real world. I did a cut-out this
> year from a roof eave that had a first year swarm in it. The core brood
> cells measured 4.9mm and got bigger in size the further away they were from
> the core. Not AHB and no forcing. They built it all from nothing.

If this is true, it would be a first.
Anyone who found such unusual comb after so many reported finding only
larger-celled comb would be well-advised take steps that would build
support for "small cell" - send the comb and some bees in for examination,
so independent and qualified parties (USDA or university) can verify this.

Like I said:

>> The bad news is that there have been no "small cell" beekeepers
>> sending samples to Beltsville for tests...

But the "small cell" stance dodges and weaves even on this
simple and obvious step, saying:

> Why would these beekeepers need to do this?

To move "small cell" away from where it currently sits, over in the corner
with Feng Shui, Crystal Therapy, Aromatherapy,  I Ching, Runes,
Past-Life Regression, Reiki, Biorhythms, Astrology, Tarot, Auras,
UFOs, Numerology, and Scientology.

In short, to provide something more than unsupported claims.

> Jim gives us a very clear example as to why HE never hears from
> those with alternative views.

The entire WORLD never hears from them.  We all read lots of postings
filled with speculation, but none that might help support the speculation.

And when research is done, it is dismissed as "wrong", "narrow",
or "incomplete":

>> Research exists, but it appears that the research done to date
>> has not supported the claims made for "small cell".

> That's because there is actually none out there. What has been
> done is fairly lame and very narrow in scope.

Then give the world the favor of something to go on that might help
someone to design a decent study.  Any "lameness" is directly
connected to the complete lack of any sort of coherent explanation
of the "small cell method".

The world awaits an explanation, 'cause we've had a bellyful of
random claims and excuses that everyone who sees no results
did something "wrong".

> We've yet to see any study that deals with the whole issue.
> Most are just one little speck from the whole.

Then document the "whole issue", so an impartial party can try
to reproduce the results.  Publish a list of people who are claiming
success, and have them send in samples of bees, comb, and
honey for analysis to prove that chemicals are not being used
on the sly.

The "problem" with "small cell" is not the theory itself.  The "problem"
is 100% fact-free posts in "support" of small cell that only have the
effect of undercutting the credibility of the theory.

If "small cell" resulted in even only half the advantages claimed,
the world would beat a path to the door of the person who could
simply write down "how to do it".


        jim